Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Oct 1989

Vol. 392 No. 3

Larceny Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Mr. D. Ahern

Before the debate adjourned I was dealing with section 3, which is the kernel of the Bill. Up until now it had to be proven that the defendant had actual knowledge of the fact that the item was stolen. This section broadens it. I had said that I did not particularly agree with bringing in the element of recklessness because I felt a number of people could be careless or reckless in their dealings and they might genuinely not know that the item had been stolen. That is why I feel the Department are quite right in not taking on this element of recklessness and in dealing with the matter in a different way. However as I have said I am not particularly sure that the words "knowing or believing it to be stolen property" are the right way to go about it and this should be teased out on Committee Stage.

In my opinion this legislation reduces the onus of proof on the prosecution. There is no doubt about that. The people who made submissions to the Law Reform Commission had an interest in putting forward a certain type of case. I do not think it is right that we should slavishly follow on from the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission report, even though the report is excellent. I feel that the Government and we in Parliament have to tease out and bring our personal knowledge to bear on the legislation. As I have said, interest groups put forward their own interests when they are making submissions to the Law Reform Commission and we therefore have to find a happy medium. I hope that we will bring this point up on Committee Stage.

The question of actual knowledge has been part of a great deal of legislation and case law. Indeed in the intoxicating liquor legislation the publican could say in his defence that he did not know that the person was under age and he had a justifiable case to be acquitted. However this has been changed in the recent legislation and this shows that we are tightening up the legislation in a number of similar areas in order to make convictions stick. There is a genuine need to tighten the legislation because as somebody said the lawyers pick holes in it.

That inferences can be drawn reduces the onus on the prosecution and to a certain extent puts it on the defence. I am not so sure that this is a good thing. The section goes on to say ".... handles .... in such circumstances that it is reasonable to conclude that he knew or believed the property to be stolen ..." This shows how the onus is, to a certain extent, being put on the defence to prove that they did not in fact know that a particular item was stolen.

The amendment of section 43 of the 1916 Act and the allowing of previous convictions to be tendered in evidence is a fairly thorny subject. While I would have sympathy with many of the arguments made by some Members on the opposite side of the House, and my colleague, Deputy O'Dea, counter to what Deputy McCartan has said I have come across a case where section 43 was invoked and nobody on the defence side queried the constitutionality of that section. Deputy O'Keeffe made great play of the fact that this could possibly be unconstitutional and that what we are proposing in the legislation is an extension of that section, which the Law Reform Commission suggested should be done away with altogether. I am not sure about this. It is necessary to prove the prior history of someone who receives or handles stolen goods; it is good that that should be done. I believe the safeguards are suitable to take care of any situation which might arise in a prosecution where the defendant could be unfairly taken advantage of.

The idea of alternative verdicts is addressed in the Bill. This is to be commended because in my practice I have often found that defendants who have been charged only with receiving stolen property have been let off, sometimes on the basis that they did not know it was stolen, while the prosecution have failed and have not been able to get a verdict on any other charge. It is good that there should be an ability to have alternative verdicts. I am glad this provision is included in the Bill.

I think a previous speaker mentioned that the withholding of information is well taken care of in the Criminal Justice Act, 1984, where fairly good strictures are put on suspects in relation to the withholding of information. As one speaker suggested, perhaps that provision should now be changed by including an amendment in this Bill to cover handling as well as receiving stolen goods.

Earlier Deputy O'Dea referred to stolen credit cards but this problem will be taken care of under section 2 of the Bill which states: "A person who is, when not at his place of abode, in possession of any article for use in the course of or in connection with larceny or burglary ...." I think every Deputy is aware of, and it is getting more publicity every day, the bogus collections at doorsteps. Up to now I know the Garda have had grave difficulty in charging people but under section 2 they will have the ability to charge someone who is committing this type of offence.

While the Bill is only a first step, it is a good step. A lot of the problematic areas can be teased out on Committee Stage. I know the Minister is well aware of the sentiments expressed by many Members that not only this legislation but very direct methods and resources should be made available to ensure that crime which has increased in some areas — thankfully it has decreased in other areas — is stopped. As I said earlier, the Minister has shown in every other portfolio he has had that he takes to it with a vengeance and I have no doubt that he will implement changes which will ensure that a good stricture will be put on crime.

A number of Deputies made some very relevant points. I agree with Deputy Kavanagh, a non-lawyer, as he said himself, in regard to the whole area of "believing" and "thinking". I am not particularly sure if there is a difference between them and I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that. Many of the problems Deputies have will be taken care of on Committee Stage.

Mr. Durkan

First, I should like to give a general welcome to the Bill on the basis that new measures are necessary to combat the increasing rise in the crime rate with particular reference to the trade in stolen goods. As we all know the trade in stolen goods has become big business and a type of brokerage has grown up over the past few years. Because of the increasing value, size and scale of the properties being stolen it had become increasingly obvious that new measures were necessary to combat this undesirable growth in crime. For this reason I welcome the Bill, but as I said I do so conditionally.

The only thing which worries me, as is often the case in matters of this nature, is, having listened to members of the legal profession over the past few hours, how they would interpret the various definitions laid down in the Bill, with particular reference to "knowing" and "thinking", to which the Minister referred on page 1 of his speech. While on the one hand the proposed changes are useful, I wonder what kind of legal arguments will be put forward in the courts when the time comes for somebody to prove or disprove, as the case may be, that, instead of the receiver having had prior knowledge that the goods were stolen, the accused believed or thought that the property was stolen.

While the Bill seeks to resolve a problem it could end up in virtually the same cul-de-sac as prevails at present. As a non-legal person — and again having listened to the submissions of various learned, legal people today — I can see quite a number of avenues where the counsel on either side are likely to argue into infinity the various interpretations as to how one can know whether a person had prior knowledge, whether the prosecution actually knew they had prior knowledge or whether, as in this case, they will be able to stand up and say the receiver believed that the goods were stolen.

There is a need to call a halt to the cavalier attitude that has existed not just in relation to any particular type of larceny but in relation to a whole range of goods that are regularly being sold. Whole containers of meat or clothing can disappear from roadside car parks. Virtually any commodity that can be carried by road, rail or air is now likely to be stolen at one time or another. Such items are of no use whatever unless they can be disposed of. The channels through which they are disposed of have means of laundering the goods before filtering them on to the market again and the Bill will probably go some way towards taking on those people. This is big business. Whole container loads of various products have disappeared without trace only to reappear somewhere else, and in difficult times consumers may be taken in by generous offers made by people peddling these goods. I hope the Bill will be successful in that area.

Another aspect of the Bill is the whole area of "provisions" for the "discerning criminal", for example, crowbars, hatchets and sawn-off shotguns, and the various paraphernalia necessary for a criminal to have readily available. There is every reason to take action to put the people who supply such goods out of business. It has become obvious in recent years that there are people in the brokerage business who are able to lend or lease their property to criminals who might need these implements in a hurry and such people have to be put out of business. It is rather alarming that the Garda can stop an individual in possession of such items as sawn-off shotguns, hatchets or heavy duty wire cutters which would hardly be used in the ordinary household as part of the gardening equipment, and that when charged these people are often allowed out on bail. People who carry such implements do not do so for the good of their health or that of anybody else. They are not on an errand of mercy or involved in any community activity that I can think of. They have no other purpose than to commit a felony and possibly to take life. We have become complacent in dealing with people like that. One atrocity seems to recede into the distance as another comes over the horizon. That is an alarming development in our society. Whether for bank robberies, post office robberies or whatever, in most cases these people have access to the materials they need to carry out such felonies, sometimes from their own resources but very often, as has been pointed out on several occasions, from firms who act as brokers in providing the "trade" with the day-to-day necessities of running their illegal business.

The Garda have the almost impossible job of putting them out of business, and hopefully this Bill will help. What puzzles me is why in any circumstances people possessing such implements could expect to get out on bail pending a trial. I think there should be no circumstances in which that should happen. The fact that they have in their possession materials of the nature I have described should be sufficient indication of their intentions. Allowing such people out on bail puts further pressures on the Garda in their attempts to curtail such activities. It is not unusual for people who have been apprehended, almost en route to commit a crime, to be released on bail and commit other crimes of a similar nature while still on bail in connection with an earlier crime. This creates a whole welter of administrative difficulties by virtue of the fact that somebody somewhere decides that these individuals are innocent until proven guilty.

At what stage do such people become guilty? Is it only after they have become involved in a heinous crime of one type or another, after they have killed or maimed somebody or do they become guilty in some way after they have purchased, borrowed or stolen the implements with which they propose to carry out crime? I believe that two or three people travelling in a car at night with a sawn-off shotgun and assorted ammunition for it and the various other accoutrements required for housebreaking or car thieving have lost their case before they start at all and should not be considered innocent any longer. Which is better, to apprehend them at that stage or to wait until they actually commit a serious crime and somebody's life is lost? Are we not better to take the necessary measures to apprehend such people before things get serious?

My view is not a legal view but a layman's view, the view expressed by many of my constituents. If one talks to anybody who has been the victim of a crime over the past ten years one will quickly get a clear impression of what those people think about what should be done with people who deal in the tools of this trade.

The provisions of the Bill will go some way towards making life difficult for the big providers for this undesirable growth industry. I hope it will make the job of the Garda easier. Other speakers made reference to the fact that the Garda now spend much of their time awaiting the appearance of various accused persons in the courts. That is true. It is also true that quite a number of gardaí are involved in administration and clerical duties which keep them from doing much needed work on the streets in the pursuit of criminals. I know there have been difficulties in this area before but the problem is now of such a serious nature that we need to take account of the deployment of our best people so as to have the greatest impact on crime. Perhaps the Minister would deal with that problem at a later stage. It is not so long since the people sitting over there were over here and what seemed easy in Opposition becomes difficult when in Government. We have to accept that this is part of adversarial politics, part of democracy. Nevertheless there is an obvious need for these extra gardaí whose training must be of a higher standard than ever before because they are dealing with a more sophisticated criminal.

These problems must be addressed during the next few months. This is the end of October and we are heading towards the festive season. I would ask the Minister to ensure that adequate policing arrangements are made in this city and in every town and village. All those engaged in organised crime will be on the road in the run up to Christmas and any person who goes out to a local shop leaves his property at risk. We must ensure that the forces of law and order have the necessary resources to respond quickly and effectively.

The stealing of cars comes within the ambit of this Bill because there is quite a good business in receiving stolen car parts. Probably all of us know somebody who has had a car stolen and who was able to identify the shell of that car a few days later, all the movable components having been stripped. These parts are sold throughout the city and in some parts of the country. The people involved have a highly organised market for car components and operate through known outlets. If a car is parked unattended for three or four hours after dark it is likely to be stripped of all movable components, which will then be sold. Nobody ever seems to come upon the perpetrators of these crimes while they are engaged in removing the components.

It is necessary that the gardaí should be at least as well equipped as the criminals in terms of communications technology, etc. The sophisticated criminals of today do not use the old fashioned tools of the trade. They have sophisticated telecommunications equipment which they utilise to tip off their colleagues in the event of imminent discovery by the forces of law and order. The equipment they use will have been stolen in the first instance and will have code numbers which will enable it to be identified and removed under the provisions of this Bill. This will be of great benefit to the Garda.

I have often read of high speed car chases involving the gardaí and car thieves. I hope the horse power and the delivery of the Garda cars is at least as good as that of the cars used by the criminals. I know this can be brought to a ridiculous level since criminals may drive around in BMWs or other high-powered cars. The gardaí do not need the same type of car since it is easy to custom build a car which is capable of speed when necessary. The criminals have their own workshops where they carry out modifications to their equipment, including cars. It all comes back to the fact that property is stolen and then modified to provide criminals with the necessary equipment to carry on their trade.

I hope the Bill will be successful in putting these people out of business. I would hope at some stage that people who are caught in possession of the tools of the trade I have referred to can be put out of business quickly and that such people do not have access to bail while awaiting trial. When a person carries a weapon with which it is intended to carry out a felony, a serious offence such as killing or maiming somebody, that person should be charged and remanded in custody awaiting trial. That would present other problems but we must deal with them.

We have a much more serious crime problem than most other European countries. It is quite possible to walk along the main streets in virtually any European city and see shop windows where jewellery and other valuables are clearly displayed at all hours of the day and night. Nobody ever seems to interfere. We have long since passed the stage where luxury goods could be displayed to the public who could look at them at their leisure. It is because of the activities of the criminal element that we lost that privilege long ago. I hope we are moving doen the road towards taking on such people and dealing with them. It is my hope that law-abiding and hard working citizens will be able to go about their business without fear of interference or intimidation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Fáiltím anois roimh an Teachta Martin, agus é ar tí a chéad óráid a thabhairt uaidh.

Mr. Martin

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I dtús báire ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo agus déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Aire as ucht an Bille seo a thabhairt isteach. Tá súil agam go mbeidh deathionchar ag an mBille ar chúrsaí dlí.

Firstly, I should like to congratulate the Minister on introducing this important Bill which, essentially, strengthens the hands of the Garda Síochána in detecting and successfully prosecuting people who have committed the offence of receiving and handling stolen property. The Bill, has, as the Minister said, its origins in the report of the Law Reform Commission of 1987 which stated "that the existing law permits receiving of stolen property to escape conviction for unjustifiable reasons" and that the law as it stands "facilitates crimes of dishonesty over a wide area". That encapsulates a view held by the Garda Síochána and the public for many years. The gardaí have complained about the inadequacies of existing legislation to deal with many areas of criminal activity and of their great difficulty in achieving successful prosecutions in our courts of law.

It is a commonly held belief that many of our laws favour the criminal as opposed to the law enforcer. I believe it is vital that the Legislature redresses the balance and I see the Bill as a step in the right direction. Crime in modern times is at an unacceptable level. It is our duty to provide the gardaí with a clearly defined and strong legislative back-up to enable them to defeat and reduce the level of crime in society. People are fed up with criminals escaping conviction on the basis of a technicality in the law or on the interpretation of laws which are either badly drafted or too loosely defined. In many instances the gardaí are powerless to proceed with cases because of inadequacies in the law.

The area of crime covered by the Bill is a particularly significant one. Over £35 million worth of goods is stolen in the country annually. This field of crime has proved lucrative for many major criminal gangs, and families, who operate openly here. These criminal godfathers are known to the Garda and, indeed, to many in the community, yet they manage to evade conviction on an ongoing basis. They openly taunt the gardaí on their inability to convict them, mainly because of inadequacies in the law. Society has been too tolerant in this respect and allowed the forces of crime too free a hand. This has had a damaging effect on Garda morale and it must be corrected. I am hopeful that the provisions of the Bill will impede the activities of these gangs and reduce their effectiveness. The Minister has gone on record as stating that if there were no receivers there would be no thieves. Undoubtedly the Bill will make it more difficult for people who provide thieves with a market to evade conviction.

The new provisions in the Bill will, in practical terms, mean that the prosecutors will have to show that the accused knew or believed that the property in question was stolen. At present the prosecution has to show that a person who handled stolen goods had actual knowledge that the property was stolen, a requirement which has presented the prosecuting authorities with serious difficulties. The new provisions will render it easier for the prosecution to prove its case and should result in an increasing number of convictions of those who dishonestly trade in stolen property, whether they do so in a once off transaction or as part of a regular operation.

The significance of these provisions is that the onus is now very firmly on the individual who receives stolen goods knowing or even thinking that they were stolen, to prove otherwise. It enables the authorities to attack this area of crime on two fronts, on the actual committing of theft and on the receiving of stolen property.

Section 2 is also to be especially welcome as it modernises the law on possession of articles for use in larceny or other related crimes. The new provision will make the possession of any item for use in larceny, burgulary, taking a vehicle without consent, blackmail or obtaining by false pretences, an offence. The wide scope of this provision is particularly welcome.

I am happy that the provision is wide enough to cover the possession of documents for use in connection with a bogus charity collection. This is an area of criminal activity which has been on the increase for many years. Unfortunately, bogus charity collections have had a severe detrimental impact on genuine charities and have made people suspicious and wary of charitable collections in general, a very sad development in a society which prides itself on its generosity. I hope the Bill can in some way help to reduce the instances of bogus charities and, if it does, then a great deal will have been achieved.

Section 9 sets a standard ten years' maximum prison sentence for all types of larceny, and puts the maximum sentence for handling at 14 years. The higher maximum sentence for handling is consistent with the overall ethos of the Bill, that it is a more serious offence to provide a market for stolen goods, thereby providing an impetus for further larceny.

Indirectly this legislation may have some impact on the drugs problem. Many addicts feed their habit by resorting to theft. If this Bill succeeds in reducing the incidence of theft overall then it may have the knock-on effect of reducing the means available to drug addicts to purchase their supplies. Such a development would be very desirable.

In the overall context it must be acknowledged that the Bill represents only a fraction of what must be done to successfully defeat crime here. Many more measures must be introduced, including major structural reforms in the Garda Síochána. More adequate and effective legislation must be drafted to render life more difficult for the criminal element in society. The Minister has a difficult task ahead of him and we in this House must unreservedly support him in his efforts. Mar a deireann an seanfhocal, "Ní neart go cur le chéile".

Minister for Justice (Mr. Burke)

I should like to thank Deputies O'Keeffe, Kavanagh, McCartan, O'Dea, Flanagan, Ahern, Durkan and, in a special way, Deputy Martin who has honoured the House by making this Bill the subject of his maiden speech. I wish him well as a Member and I have no doubt that from the quality of his contribution he has a long and distinguished parliamentary and Government career ahead of him. I wish him well, so long as it is not my job that he is after. The contributions have been most constructive. Many points were made and, while I think some of them are more appropriate to Committee Stage, I will deal with them generally now. I envisage that we will have a detailed debate on all issues on Committee Stage.

The main thrust of the contributors centred on the decision not to use the recklessness test as proposed by the Law Reform Commission. The recklessness test proposed is a subjective one which corresponds, broadly speaking, to the test that has been applied by the courts in this country and others in branches of the criminal law in relation to violent crimes. But there are some difficulties about the concept of recklessness and its exact scope is somewhat uncertain.

The Law Reform Commission were, moreover, unable to provide any example of this concept in use in the law on receiving/handling stolen goods in any country — though they do cite a recommendation as to its use, as a basis of criminal liability generally, which was put forward by the Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform Committee of South Australia in a report entitled The Substantive Criminal Law published in 1977.

It is felt that, in the context of handling/receiving cases, the recklessness test suggested by the commission would prove cumbersome and confusing to juries. It is important to note that it is not favoured by the DPP whose office would have to apply this provision in practice. The mental ingredient in the offence of handling is central to the offence, given that the action on which the offence is based, which takes the form usually of one person buying conventional consumer goods from another, is, in itself, an everyday, unexceptionable activity.

We think that the level of calculation and culpability implicit in the concept and definition put forward by the commission would, if applied as a test of guilt in handling cases, have a very limited effect in terms of securing the conviction of handlers who, while not knowing for certain that the property they are acquiring is stolen, have a strong suspicion or level of belief that it is indeed stolen. Effectively, the recklessness test would in practice serve as a very narrow extension of the mental element as defined by the Larceny Act, 1916, which, it is generally conceded, places too high a burden on the prosecution to prove that the accused knew that the property he handled was stolen. The act of calculated recklessness described by the Law Reform Commission in the definition they propose undoubtedly takes place often on the part of handlers of stolen goods. It would be a very different thing to prove this in court, however.

It is my view that the mens rea used in the English Theft Act, 1968, of knowing or believing that the property was stolen would be easier to apply to alleged breaches of the law in this area, particularly when modified so that belief is defined for the purposes of the offence — and in order to catch persons who strongly suspect the property was stolen — as including thinking that the property probably was stolen. I must point out that the test as proposed in the Bill draws also on a recommendation in the commission's earlier consultation paper on this subject which was strongly favoured.

Deputy O'Keeffe as well as Deputies McCartan and O'Dea raised the question of the recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission regarding the ordering by a court of payment of compensation by the offender to the victim, and regarding the use of business and administration records in evidence in criminal trials. I can assure the Deputies that both of these matters are under consideration in my Department, and I hope to be in a position in the reasonably near future to put proposals to the Government which would deal with the evidential matter as regards all criminal trials and not just in relation to handling offences. It is important to bear in mind that both matters mentioned by the Deputy have application to the criminal law generally, and go well beyond the confines of this Bill. It is in that broader context that I am considering the matter.

Deputy O'Keeffe and Deputy McCartan criticised the provision at section 5 of the Bill which deals with the use, in handling trials, of evidence of previous possession and previous convictions. I recognise that the provision is open to criticism, and I look forward to hearing those criticisms in detail on Committee Stage. I can assure Deputies that I will listen carefully to arguments against the provision, what I ask in return is that they listen equally carefully to the points I will make in its favour.

I appreciate the force of the views expressed against the provision, but I believe there is a case to be argued in its favour. If at the close of Committee Stage I can be persuaded to a different point of view I will be prepared to look at the provisions as laid out in section 5. I can assure Deputy Kavanagh that the provision in the Bill dealing with the Post Office Act, 1968 was fully discussed with An Post. The provision at section 10 in the Bill is a purely consequential one and, in fact, reduces the maximum penalty from life imprisonment to 14 years.

Deputy McCartan and Deputy Flanagan ask — why not replace the Larceny Act completely instead of amending it piecemeal? I accept the need for a more thorough-going look at the Larceny Act. As referred to by Deputy O'Dea, the Law Reform Commission are in fact looking at the whole area of dishonesty and will be making further reports on the matter. They saw receiving of stolen property as an area requiring priority attention and dealt with it separately. When their further reports are received they will be dealt with and should enable us to take a useful step towards ultimate codification of the criminal law, by perhaps codifying in one Statute the law relating to theft etc. However because of the complexity of the matter which is compounded by the fact that the main provision is now over 70 years old, this process will be complex and protracted. The Government agree with the Commission that receiving should be tackled now.

Deputy O'Dea mentioned a possible case where the original acquisition of stolen property was innocent, but on subsequently finding out that the property was stolen the receiver decides to hold on to the goods. In such a case, because the holder undertakes the retention of the property knowing it to be stolen, he is guilty of handling.

With regard to the points made about the rationalisation of penalties, I would just like to say that law abiding citizens look to the courts to respond on their behalf when criminals who prey on the community are brought to book. It is vital to society's sense of justice that the Legislature should enable the courts to appropriately respond when greedy and rapacious criminals are convicted. The maximum sentences proposed for the offences of larceny and handling are intended of course to provide for the worst possible instances of these offences. It will be for the courts to decide in every case whether mitigating circumstances affecting the defendant should apply when sentence is being passed.

I am sure many members of this House will have come in contact with members of the public, perhaps old people of slender means, who have been the victims of heartless robbery. A valuable personal memento or a radio or television set which is that person's lifeline to the outside world has been stolen, perhaps even stolen to order at the behest of a cynical dealer in stolen property. It is of real consequence of the peace of mind of such victims of crime that every effort be made by the law enforcement authorities to bring the criminal to justice and, in those instances where such efforts are successful that a sentence is passed on the miscreant which reflects the outrage of the community at large at the offence in question.

Contrary to what has been suggested I do not prescribe to the view that crimes against property are victimless crimes. Too often the victim of a robbery is the forgotten element in the discussion of crime and punishment. The sense of injury of such individuals is sadly all too rarely considered. However, on those occasions, and I mean the minority of cases, where a theft investigation actually results in the recovery of the property stolen and conviction of the thief or handler of the item in question it must be a real consolation to all victims of crime that a criminal who acted against another victim has been apprehended and punished appropriately for his misdeed.

I am personally convinced that the public good requires the maintenance of severe penalties against dealers in stolen property. I am also satisfied that the power to fine persons convicted of theft or handling stolen property, which is proposed in this Bill, is a useful one for the courts to have, particularly when a well-heeled professional criminal elite are committing such offences.

And make no mistake about it: the professional criminal exists in our society. He is becoming more proficient at his business and more ingenious at avoiding apprehension. The law must respond to this situation in the most effective possible manner. That is what this Bill is all about.

A number of detailed items were raised by Deputies and I assure them a careful note has been taken of all the points raised. For example, one item raised by Deputy Kavanagh concerned the response to a 999 call. He said it took an hour and a half to respond and the delay occurred because six other 999 calls had to be dealt with. Since Deputy Kavanagh made this point this morning we have asked the Garda authorities for details of the alleged incident. They were unable to confirm any such details in the time available and on the limited information available. However, I ask Deputy Kavanagh to let me have the precise details of the incident in question and I undertake here in the House to make inquiries about it and communicate the result to the Deputy.

Regarding the effectiveness of the 999 system, a new command and control system has been introduced since 1 January in the DMA which will result in a faster response time by the Garda to calls by members of the public requiring assistance. It will enable the precise location of the incident in question and of the nearest available Garda unit to be pinpointed immediately and will make the system much more efficient and effective.

In conclusion, I thank Deputies for their contributions and for the obvious care they took in their preparation. Deputies expressed their feelings on this whole area of larceny and theft and on the need for reform. I can assure them I will be quite hopeful and positive in the approach I will take on Committee Stage. I look forward to a very constructive Committee Stage at an early date.

Mr. McCartan

I have a brief question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It must be very brief.

Mr. McCartan

Deputy O'Dea raised an interesting query about the need for the two subsections under section 2 regarding the different offences and the question of an offence being committed either at home or abroad. Will the Minister look at that and advise us in advance of Committee Stage lest we put down amendments needlessly on the matter?

Mr. Burke

Yes.

Mr. McCartan

I do not immediately see that as the answer to the question the Deputy raised. Perhaps the Minister could let us have the information. He need not deal with it now.

Mr. Burke

Perhaps I had better get a detailed response for the Deputy. I will send a note to the Deputies who contributed to the debate on the point made by Deputy O'Dea. That might help them in the framing of amendments or it might solve their problem but if they want to put an amendment down we can have a chat about it. I will respond individually to the Members who contributed to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Burke

Next Wednesday, subject to agreement with the Whips.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I know this is a formality. Quite a number of people will be anxious to examine the technical points, some of which have been discussed this morning. While I would like to see a new, good Bill in place as quickly as possible, it may take a little time to have these technical points property teased out and amendments framed.

Mr. Burke

Subject to agreement with the Whips — it is just a formula.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1 November 1989.